Dvx 16:9???

sbaileymediaman

sbaileymediaman

Active member
I own a DVX100b and am going to be shooting a short film in widescreen which I usually don't shoot in.

Does 16:9 squeez lose any quality compared to standard 4:3? as we are hoping to have it's premiere at a local cinema and enter some of the prestigious film festivals.

-Shon
 
Shooting in "16:9" on the DVX is nothing more than placing black bars over the top and bottom of the video. It is not true 16:9. In fact, it is worse because it deliberately destroys lines of vertical resolution.

If you want "true" 16:9 video on the DVX, you must purchase a 72mm anamorphic lens adapter to screw on the front of the camera. It will squeeze a 16:9 aspect image into the 4:3 chips of the DVX. Then you can use FCP to stretch it back out to 16:9 without losing any lines of resolution.

Hope this helps.

Jeremy
________________________________________
Orange County Wedding Videography by Trend Media
 
Last edited:
The DVX is a 4:3 camcorder. To make 16:9, it lops off the top and bottom and stretches the central 75% of the image to fill the screen.

It looks fine in 24p and 30p mode, but not so good in 60i mode. Yes it's lower resolution than the 4:3 mode. But it's also a different frame shape. You can't have both on the DVX, something's gotta give when you get 16:9 out of 4:3 chips.

The anamorphic adapter can indeed yield sharper video, but it's something of a pain in the patootie to use. I say try squeeze mode out; if you like it, it's the easiest/cheapest way to go. If you think it looks too soft, then you can get the anamorphic adapter and learn to deal with its idiosyncracies.
 
jeremyminer said:
Shooting in "16:9" on the DVX is nothing more than placing black bars over the top and bottom of the video. It is not true 16:9. In fact, it is worse because it deliberately destroys lines of vertical resolution.
Click to expand...


umm.. I think you're talking about letterbox..
The DVX has a squeeze mode.. and THAT is not "true" 16:9...

To get the highest quality from the DVX, letterbox is actually the way to go.. if you don't want that.. then I suggest you shoot 4:3.. cause it rocks...
 
Six of one, half-dozen of the other; any way you go, if you want to make anamorphic 16:9 from the DVX, you're stretching a 720x360 picture to 720x480 and working with 25% less resolution than you'd have with native 16:9.

Whichever way you decide, shoot THIN.
 
And, actually "Stretch" IS true 16:9 video [it's just the chips that arn't] "letterbox" isn't 16:9.

The main debate is do you "squeeze" in camera, or shoot 4:3 and then "squeeze & crop"in post? - Most people prefer the 2nd method as it allows for final headroom trimming in post. - Again, this stuff looks best in "P" mode.

- Mikko
 
Thanks guys

So te general advice is shoot in 4:3 and digitally convert the image to a 'cropped' and stretched image in post?
 
tommetass said:
umm.. I think you're talking about letterbox..
The DVX has a squeeze mode.. and THAT is not "true" 16:9...

To get the highest quality from the DVX, letterbox is actually the way to go.. if you don't want that.. then I suggest you shoot 4:3.. cause it rocks...
Click to expand...

I don't see how letterbox yields better quality. In both "squeeze" and "letterbox" the same portion of the chip is used, but in "squeeze" this information fills the whole frame, while in "letterbox" it does not. Therefore in "squeeze" you lose information once -- on a chip, with "letterbox" you lose it twice -- on a chip, then by using less resolution than possible to record your frame. Letterbox sucks. Of course, if the chip can provide only 360 lines or less for 16:9 mode, then there is no real difference between "squeeze" and "letterbox".
David Jimerson said:
Six of one, half-dozen of the other; any way you go, if you want to make anamorphic 16:9 from the DVX, you're stretching a 720x360 picture to 720x480 and working with 25% less resolution than you'd have with native 16:9.
Click to expand...
In "squeeze" mode the 16:9 frame takes full 720x480.
mikkowilson said:
The main debate is do you "squeeze" in camera, or shoot 4:3 and then "squeeze & crop"in post?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "squeeze & crop"? Do you mean "shoot and protect" and then cut off top and bottom? Because I cannot see how you can squeeze 4:3 into 16:9 and preserve proportions of objects in the image.
 
Yeah, I mean "shoot and protect" in camera, and then crop and "stretch" (better word) to 16:9 in post.

- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
Yeah, I mean "shoot and protect" in camera, and then crop and "stretch" (better word) to 16:9 in post.

- Mikko
Click to expand...

After you crop top and bottom, it will be 16:9, therefore you don't really stretch it afterwards, do you? How this is better than letterboxing in camera? At the end, you are using the same number of pixels. I suppose the only benefit is that you can do vertical "pan and scan" in post, but would not it be easier to frame for 16:9 from the beginning? It seems that "squeeze" gives the best possible quality overall, and 100B is able to display it with correct aspect ratio. I wonder what took them so long to merely reformat the image on the LCD. I wonder is there some sort of anamorphic glass, ones you can snap onto the LCD and unsqueeze vertically squeezed image, just to monitor while shooting? This would really help 100, 100A and GL2 owners. I know that there are simple magnifying lenses, sort of that were used with old TVs, but are there anamorphic ones?
 
On this note guys, i shoot SQUEEZE, and i capture my footage, and drop it in a 23.98 timeline (i capture with a 2:3:3:2 with 24pA on my camera)...Then i check tghe 16:9 anamorphic check box. I'm doing all this right, right? I add a widescreen matte after from the filter drop down menu...Just to get some letterboxing because I like the look on it. Thanks
 
Cranky said:
After you crop top and bottom, it will be 16:9, therefore you don't really stretch it afterwards, do you? How this is better than letterboxing in camera? At the end, you are using the same number of pixels. I suppose the only benefit is that you can do vertical "pan and scan" in post, but would not it be easier to frame for 16:9 from the beginning? It seems that "squeeze" gives the best possible quality overall, and 100B is able to display it with correct aspect ratio. I wonder what took them so long to merely reformat the image on the LCD. I wonder is there some sort of anamorphic glass, ones you can snap onto the LCD and unsqueeze vertically squeezed image, just to monitor while shooting? This would really help 100, 100A and GL2 owners. I know that there are simple magnifying lenses, sort of that were used with old TVs, but are there anamorphic ones?
Click to expand...

If you crop top and bottom, you need to stretch it to get rid of the black bars and make it good for 16:9 televisions. If you just crop it, without the black bars, I think you still need to stretch it either way, so that it is a certain resolution -- either you stretch it, or the TV might stretch it for you. It's better to do it yourself, and better yet, do it in camera (stretch mode).

Reason why some say letterbox is better than 4:3 mode is because letterbox holds less information (some of it is black barred), so there is less compression needed I guess when it gets recorded to tape. This is all theoretical.
 
I had a question... If you shoot with the aspect auto and you dont letterbox... Than crop to 16:9 or 2:35:1 than play back on a widescreen hd monitor or transfer to film to project in theatre or even digitally project in theatre... How bad would the footage look? Could a program like Instant HD or Photozoom make it look better? But than if you used a program like that... Would the footage look squeezed when played on a regular standard 4:3 tv?
Thanks
 
Just figured out why there aren't many posts concerning the Pana ana 7200 lens in the last year; because that lens is a nightmare from hell. Please stop haunting my dreams, 16:9 devil hooker.
 
I have done a few tests and really letterboxing in camera produced the best results for me, even when zoomed in 33 percent in order to fill a 16x9 frame. It has something to do with sampling and bitrate, the camera knows its shooting letterbox so will change the bitrate around to only help the image and not the black bars.... I think that is what I read somewhere on here. Regardless, I have found letterbox to get the best image when shooting 16x9.

shooting 4x3 and cropping in post yielded the worst results for me using PP CS3.
 
There are so many dicussions on this it's not even informative any more. I just shoot Widescreen on the thing and call it a day. My shots still come out fine.
 
i shoot in squeeze mode and I'm pretty happy. It will never be HD, but for standard def it's pretty good. I agree that the anamorphic adaptor is too much of a pain to fiddle with.
 
zergtherobot said:
I have done a few tests and really letterboxing in camera produced the best results for me, even when zoomed in 33 percent in order to fill a 16x9 frame. It has something to do with sampling and bitrate, the camera knows its shooting letterbox so will change the bitrate around to only help the image and not the black bars....
Click to expand...

There is no way this is true at all. The camera doesn't do any "bit shifting" to give you a better picture when shooting letterbox.

Glad it is working for you, keep doing it. Really it all comes down to workflow, I like working with native anamorphic footage from import to export so I shoot squeeze.

I don't think anyone on here would be able to tell (at a 100% crop) if you shot squeeze or letterbox. No one watches footage at a 400% crop of res charts...

Oh, and the horse is dead, stop beating it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top